Should women be pastors? (2)

NorrinRadd · #**221** 5th February 2010, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Duckybill

I know it's quite popular nowadays to edit parts of the Bible that are not liked.

Well yeah, but that's always been the case.

Very early on, a well-intentioned scribe most likely added vv. 34-35 to 1 Cor. 14.

In Rom. 16, some translations add an "s" to turn the feminine "Junia" into the masculine "Junias," the latter being a name that did not exist in the First Century.

In Col. 4, a few translations do the same with "Nympha."

In the verse in question -- Eph. 5:22 -- two things happened: First, translators of most English versions add "submit" to v. 22, to make it read more "normally" in English. In Greek, the verb is not there, but is "borrowed" from v. 21. (You will note that some English translations are a bit more "transparent" about this, and italicize words that are not literally present.) Second, all English translations divide books into chapters and verses, which sometimes artificially breaks up context, as in this case; there are no such divisions in the original manuscripts. Third, many English translations chop up the context even further by inserting additional breaks at their own whim, wherever they think it will be "helpful" in marking supposedly distinct topics; accordingly, some break (inappropriately) between vv. 21 and 22, while others break between vv. 20 and 21.

Willtor · #**222** 5th February 2010, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by ParanoidAndroid

I can't say I find too much wrong with your analysis here. Improper usage of Lordship has (and probably does) lead to bad results.

But any problematic issue was the result of a "bad lord" - and while I do not disagree that some people are simply bad lords, in a truly godly relationship this would not be so.

Best wishes, and Regards,

~ PA

Yes, of course. I think we are on the same wavelength with respect to humility and respect in the person of the husband. When I was opposed to women in the role of pastor (for much the same reasons as you), I certainly didn't think that a husband should be abusive with his authority. On the contrary, he should be the model of restraint and kindness.

The difference, now, is that I think that headship carries connotations of power but not authority. When I think of the relationship between Christ and the Church, Christ fills many roles; and if I were to characterize the one in which he wields authority (to the benefit of the Church, of course), I think of his lordship -- not his headship.

ParanoidAndroid · #**223** 6th February 2010, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by Willtor

Yes, of course. I think we are on the same wavelength with respect to humility and respect in the person of the husband. When I was opposed to women in the role of pastor (for much the same reasons as you), I certainly didn't think that a husband should be abusive with his authority. On the contrary, he should be the model of restraint and kindness.

The difference, now, is that I think that headship carries connotations of power but not authority. When I think of the relationship between Christ and the Church, Christ fills many roles; and if I were to characterize the one in which he wields authority (to the benefit of the Church, of course), I think of his lordship -- not his headship.

Fair enough, I can see that. It seems we do have similar ideas (at least in terms of husbandly duties). I still tend to carry themes of authority though that translate into pastoral roles. And so far, my views haven't changed (though the reasoning leading to those views has).

Best wishes,

~ PA